UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  PUBLICATIONS 

COLLEGE  OF  AGRICULTURE 

AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION 
BERKELEY,  CALIFORNIA 


HEAVY  vs.  LIGHT  GRAIN  FEEDING 
FOR  DAIRY  COWS 


BY 

F.  W.  WOLL,  E.  C.  VOORHIES  and  C.  V.  CASTLE 


BULLETIN  No.  323 

July,  1920 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  PRESS 

BERKELEY 

1920 


David  P.  Barrows,  President  of  the  University. 

EXPERIMENT  STATION  STAFF 
Heads  of  Divisions 

Thomas  Forsyth  Hunt,  Dean. 

Edward  J.  Wickson,  Horticulture  (Emeritus). 

Walter  Mulford,  Forestry,  Director  of  Resident  Instruction. 

CM.  Haring,  Veterinary  Science,  Director  Agricultural  Experiment  Station. 

B.  H.  Crocheron,  Director  of  Agricultural  Extension. 
Hubert  E.  Van  Norman,  Vice-Director;  Dairy  Management. 

James  T.  Barrett,  Acting  Director  of  Citrus  Experiment  Station;  Plant  Pathology. 
William  A.  Setchell,  Botany. 
Myer  E.  Jaffa,  Nutrition. 
Ralph  E.  Smith,  Plant  Pathology. 
J.  Eliot  Coit,  Citriculture. 
John  W.  Gilmore,  Agronomy. 
Charles  F.  Shaw,  Soil  Technology. 
John  W.  Gregg,  Landscape  Gardening  and  Floriculture. 
Frederic  T.  Bioletti,  Viticulture  and  Fruit  Products. 
Warren  T.  Clarke,  Agricultural  Extension. 
John  S.  Burd,  Agricultural  Chemistry. 
Charles  B  .  Lipman,  Soil  Chemistry  and  Bacteriology. 
Ernest  B.  Babcock,  Genetics. 
Gordon  H.  True,  Animal  Husbandry. 
Fritz  W.  Woll,  Animal  Nutrition. 
W.  P.  Kelley,  Agricultural  Chemistry. 
H.  J.  Quayle,  Entomology. 
Elwood  Mead,  Rural  Institutions. 
H.  S.  Reed,  Plant  Physiology. 
L.  D.  Batchelor,  Orchard  Management. 
J.  C.  Whitten,  Pomology. 
fFRANK  Adams,  Irrigation  Investigations. 

C.  L.  Roadhouse,  Dairy  Industry. 
R.  L.  Adams,  Farm  Management, 

F.  L.  Griffin,  Agricultural  Education. 
John  E.  Dougherty,  Poultry  Husbandry. 
William  B.  Herms,  Entomology  and  Parasitology 
L.  J.  Fletcher,  Agricultural  Engineering. 
Edwin  C.  Voorhies,  Assistant  to  the  Dean. 


fin  co-operation  with  office  of  Public  Roads  and  Rural  Engineering,  U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture. 


HEAVY  vs.  LIGHT   GRAIN    FEEDING 
FOR   DAIRY  COWS1 

By  F.  W.  WOLL,  E.  C.  VOORHIES  and  C.  V.  CASTLE2 


The  system  of  feeding  dairy  cows  practiced  by  the  dairy  farmers  of 
the  state  varies  widely,  both  as  regards  kinds  and  amounts  of  feeds  sup- 
plied. In  the  interior  valleys  where  climatic  and  soil  conditions  are 
most  favorable  to  the  growing  of  alfalfa,  this  is  the  main  forage  crop 
grown  and,  as  a  general  rule,  forms  the  exclusive  feed  of  the  cows.  It 
is  either  pastured  or  fed  green  during  the  growing  season,  generally 
supplemented  with  cured  hay,  and  the  balance  of  the  year  the  cows 
receive  nothing  but  alfalfa  hay.  In  the  central  and  southern  coast 
sections,  on  the  other  hand,  the  cows  are  largely  limited  to  the  feed 
furnished  by  the  hill  pastures  and  their  lactation  periods  correspond, 
broadly  speaking,  to  the  period  when  green  feed  is  available.  In  the 
northern  coast  section  we  find  a  third  distinct  system  of  dairy  feeding; 
owing  to  the  abundant  rainfall  of  this  section,  luxurious  pastures, 
especially  rye  grass  and  clover,  form  the  basis  of  the  feed  for  the  cows, 
and  root  crops  are  generally  grown  and  fed.  Here  more  or  less  intensive 
feeding  of  grain  feeds  ("  concentrates")  is  also  practiced,  which  until 
recently  was  done  only  occasionally  by  leading  dairymen  in  the  alfalfa 
districts  or  the  other  dairy  sections  of  the  state. 

The  large  majority  of  the  dairy  farmers  in  the  state  at  the  present 
time  do  not  feed  concentrates  to  their  cows  along  with  the  hay  or  pasture 
crops;  the  silo  has  been  adopted  to  a  considerable  extent  of  late  years  in 
practically  all  parts  of  the  state  where  dairying  is  an  important  industry 
and  furnishes  valuable  silage  from  crops  like  Indian  Corn,  grain  or 
saccharine  sorghums,  alfalfa  or  cereal  crops.  In  many  cases  these  also 
supply  a  certain  amount  of  grain,  and  both  on  this  account  and  because 
of  the  fact  that  they  place  a  variety  of  feed  at  the  disposal  of  the  dairy- 
men, the  system  of  feeding  silage  with  dry  roughage  has  a  decided  ad- 
vantage over  the  one-crop  feeding  method,  and  yields  larger  and  more 
economical  returns  from  the  dairy.  The  modern  dairy  cow  is  a  heavy- 
producing  animal,  and  in  fact,  a  good  dairy  cow  produces  in  a  year  as 
much  edible  food  materials  in  her  milk  as  half  a  dozen  steers  will  pro- 
duce in  the  form  of  meat,  and  she  requires,  therefore,  a  large  supply  of 
digestible  nutrients  in  her  daily  ration,  some  of  which  must  be  in  con- 
centrated form  for  best  results,  so  as  to  furnish  as  much  net  nutrients 

1  This  publication  is  not  intended  for  use  as  a  feeding  guide.  For  a  general  dis- 
cussion of  the  subject  the  reader  should  consult  circular  215  California  Experiment 
Station,  Feeding  Dairy  Cows  in  California,  by  F.  W.  Woll. 

2  The  first  of  the  experiments  reported  in  this  bulletin  was  conducted  by  Messrs. 
Woll  and  Voorhies  and  the  last  two  by  Messrs.  Woll  and  Castle. 


4  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

as  possible  in  a  small  bulk.  The  digestive  apparatus  of  the  cow  is  able 
to  utilize  bulky  feed  to  a  large  extent,  but  the  net  nutritive  effect  of 
such  feed  is  relatively  low  and  maximum  returns  in  production  of  milk 
and  milk  solids  can  only  be  secured  by  supplementing  the  coarse  feed 
with  certain  amounts  of  concentrates.  Carefully  conducted  experi- 
ments and  practical  feeding  experience  have  fully  established  this  fact 
during  the  past  decade  or  two;  the  dairymen  who  are  heavy  feeders  and 
supply  grain  feeds  for  their  cows,  along  with  hay  and  succulent  feeds, 
are  the  ones  that  are  able  to  obtain  the  largest  yields  and  the  greatest 
profits  from  their  dairies,  without  regard  to  the  section  of  the  state  in 
which  they  reside. 

Experiments  conducted  at  the  University  Farm  by  the  writer  and 
associates  during  the  past  six  years  have  shown  that  an  average  direct 
increase  of  about  15%  in  milk  flow  or  production  of  butterfat  may  be 
confidently  expected  with  good  dairy  cows  when  alfalfa  is  supplemented 
with  limited  grain  feeding3;  this  does  not  take  into  account  the  more 
lasting  effect  of  the  heavier  feeding  on  the  milk  yield  during  the  entire 
balance  of  the  lactation  period  or  the  advantages  of  having  cows  in  a 
good  body  condition.  Cows  in  our  dairy  herd  that  have  been  supplied 
a  mixed  ration  of  alfalfa  hay,  silage  and  concentrates  have  produced,  on 
the  average  for  a  series  of  lactation  periods,  about  25%  more  milk  and 
butterfat  per  head  during  the  lactation  than  cows  of  a  similar  breed  and 
type  whose  rations  were  composed  solely  of  alfalfa.4 

It  is  of  interest  in  this  connection  to  note  the  results  of  a  field  survey 
recently  conducted  by  Mr.  Ralph  L.  Phelps  in  behalf  of  the  Sperry 
Flour  Company.  It  was  found  among  the  dairy  herds  in  Stanislaus 
County  that  in  those  fed  alfalfa  only,  making  up  75%  of  the  total  number, 
the  cows  produced  one-half  to  two  gallons,  or  an  average  of  1.8  gallons 
of  milk  per  head  daily;  herds  fed  alfalfa  and  silage,  making  up  20%  of 
the  total  number,  produced  between  two  and  one-half  and  three  gallons 
of  milk  on  the  average,  and  the  last  group  of  herds  receiving  mixed  rations 
of  alfalfa,  silage  and  grain  feeds,  making  up  5%  of  the  total  number, 
produced  between  four  and  five  gallons  of  milk  per  head  daily.  It 
cannot  be  assumed  that  this  difference  is  due  entirely  to  the  system  of 
feeding  adopted  by  these  dairymen ;  on  the  contrary,  we  know  it  is  not, 
because  the  kind  of  cows  kept  by  the  three  classes  of  dairymen  differ 
greatly,  but  there  can  be  no  question  but  that  the  feed  was  a  most 
important  factor  in  bringing  about  the  larger  returns  from  the  herds 
fed  rations  composed  of  both  roughage  and  concentrates. 

3  Bulletin  256,  Agricultural  Experiment  Station,  University  of  California,  The 
Value  of  Barley  for  Cows  Fed  Alfalfa,  by  Gordon  H.  True,  F.  W.  Woll  and  E.  C. 
Voorhies,  Berkeley,  Calif.,  June,  1915. 

4  Journal  of  Dairy  Science,  Vol.  I,  pp.  447-461 :  Alfalfa  as  a  Sole  Feed  for  Dairy 
Cows,  by  F.  W.  Woll. 


Bulletin  323  GRAIN  FEEDING  FOR  DAIRY  COWS  5 

Where  grain  feeds  form  an  important  part  of  the  rations  fed  to  the 
cows  by  dairy  farmers  in  this  state,  the  amounts  supplied  range  from 
a  couple  of  pounds  to  ten  pounds  or  more  per  head  daily.  This  is  a 
very  wide  range  and  one  can  hardly  believe  that  the  practices  of  grain 
feeding  indicated  by  these  extremes  are  equally  sound.  There  is,  how- 
ever, no  definite  experimental  evidence  available  on  which  to  form  an 
opinion  as  to  the  amount  of  grain  that  can  be  economically  fed  to 
California  dairy  cows  of  different  productive  capacities,  and  practical 
opinion  among  dairymen  in  regard  to  the  matter  varies  greatly  even 
with  the  same  kinds  of  rough  feeds  as  the  basis  of  the  rations  fed.  In 
view  of  this  situation  and  of  the  importance  of  the  subject  to  our  dairy 
farmers  and  the  feed  trade  it  was  decided  to  take  up  the  question  for 
study  with  cows  in  the  University  dairy  herd  and  to  continue  the  in- 
vestigation if  possible,  until  we  would  be  in  a  position  to  draw  definite 
conclusions  and  to  furnish  reliable  information  as  to  the  extent  to  which 
grain  and  other  concentrates  may  be  safely  fed  to  dairy  cows  under  the 
conditions  present  in  this  state.  Three  experiments  have  accordingly 
been  conducted  in  the  study  of  this  subject,  and  believing  that  the  goal 
set  has  been  reached,  the  present  bulletin  is  published,  giving  an  account 
of  the  work  done  and  the  main  results  secured  in  the  investigations. 

PLAN  OF  FEEDING  GRAIN  TO  DAIRY  COWS 

According  to  the  plan  of  feeding  dairy  cows  adopted  by  many  leading 
dairymen  in  the  state,  the  cows  are  fed  a  certain  amount  of  "  grain" 
(a  term  which  according  to  common  dairy  usage  is  synonymous  with 
grain  feeds,  concentrated  feeds,  or  "concentrates")  per  pound  of  milk 
produced,  generally  one  pound  for  every  four  or  five  pounds  of  milk,  but 
sometimes  as  much  as  a  pound  for  every  three  pounds  of  milk  is  fed  and 
recommended.  It  is  evident  that  this  way  of  gauging  the  amount  of 
grain  to  be  fed  is  open  to  criticism,  from  the  fact  that  the  quality  of  the 
milk  produced  is  not  considered,  and  a  cow  yielding,  say  30  lbs.,  of 
milk  would  be  entitled  to  six  to  ten  pounds  of  grain,  if  this  is  fed  in  pro- 
portion of  1:5  or  1:3,  respectively,  whether  the  milk  contained  3% 
butterfat  or  6%.  Milk  of  a  high  fat  content  has  a  high  per  cent,  of 
total  solids  as  well  and  more  food  energy  is  required  for  the  elaboration 
of  such  milk  than  for  milk  of  low  contents  of  fat  and  total  solids.  Evi- 
dently, therefore,  if  a  ratio  of  a  pound  of  grain  to  say  five  pounds  of 
milk  is  a  correct  one  for  milk  containing  a  low  percentage  of  fat,  it  will 
be  too  low  for  a  high  percentage  milk  and  vice  versa. 

A  common  method  of  designating  the  amount  of  concentrates  to  be 
fed  dairy  cows  adopted  by  dairymen  in  eastern  and  central  states  is  to 
feed  as  many  pounds  of  grain  a  day  as  the  cows  will  yield  butterfat  in  a 
week,  or  seven  times  the  amount  of  butterfat  produced  in  a  day.   It  would 


b  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

seem  that  this  method  furnishes  a  more  satisfactory  standard  for  feeding 
grain  to  dairy  cows  than  the  rule  commonly  used  by  our  farmers  based 
on  the  amount  of  milk  produced,  although  it  is  not  quite  as  easily  applied 
and  calls  for  determination  of  the  fat  content  of  the  milk  or  a  more  or 
less  definite  knowledge  of  the  same.  In  two  of  the  experiments  reported 
and  discussed  in  this  bulletin  the  ratio  of  grain  allowance  to  amount  of 
milk  was  used,  while  in  the  third  experiment  the  grain  feeding  was  based 
on  the  amount  of  butterfat  produced  by  the  cows. 

GENERAL  PLAN  OF  THE  EXPERIMENTS 

The  general  plan  of  the  experiments  was  similar  in  nearly  every 
way  and  provided  for  placing  on  the  experiment  as  many  cows  in  the 
University  dairy  herd  as  were  ava  lable  for  the  purpose  at  the  time. 
Cows  which  were  in  normal  lactation  and  not  too  near  freshening  nor 
too  close  to  drying  up  were  used,  so  that  any  change  occurring  in  the 
production  not  caused  by  possible  accidents  or  unforseen  circumstances 
might  be  safely  considered  a  direct  result  of  the  special  system  of  feeding 
practiced.  The  cows  were  separated  into  two  lots,  each  made  as  even  as 
possible  as  to  average  production  of  milk  and  butterfat,  days  in  milk, 
nearness  to  next  freshening  or  drying  up,  body  weights  and  breeds 
represented.  The  accounts  of  previous  experiments  with  cows  in  the 
University  dairy  herd  given  in  our  bulletins  will  suggest  that  the  ideal 
aimed  at  was  only  approximated  in  these  as  in  early  experiments  with 
the  dairy  herd,  but  it  is  believed  that  any  irregularities  that  may  have 
crept  in  have  been  of  minor  importance  and  that  the  conclusions  drawn 
from  the  results  obtained  are  fully  warranted  and  may  be  safely  accepted. 

The  experiments  were  divided  into  two  periods  of  five  or  six  weeks 
each,  a  week's  preliminary  feeding  being  introduced  prior  to  each  period 
in  order  to  accustom  the  cows  to  the  rations  to  be  fed  the  subsequent 
periods.  The  lot  was  fed  one  of  the  two  grain  ratios  experimented  with 
during  the  first  period,  and  the  ratios  were  reversed  the  second  period 
so  as  to  place  all  the  cows  on  the  experiment  on  both  ratios  and  allow  a 
direct  comparison  of  their  effects  on  the  production  and  body  weights 
of  the  cows.  Designating  the  lots  A  and  B,  we  thus  have,  e.g.,  that  the 
cows  in  Lot  A  were  fed  a  ratio  of  1  pound  of  grain  to  5  pounds  milk 
during  Period  I,  and  one  of  1 :3  during  Period  II,  the  ratios  fed  to  Lot  B 
being  1:3  during  Period  I,  and  1:5  during  Period  II. 

The  amount  of  grain  fed  was  adjusted  each  week  according  to  the 
milk  flow  of  the  cows  during  the  preceding  week.  In  addition,  the  lot 
received  similar  amounts  of  alfalfa  hay  and  sweet  sorghum  or  Indian 
corn  silage.  The  same  care  and  general  management  was  given  all 
cows  on  each  experiment.  The  milk  from  each  individual  cow  was 
weighed  and  sampled  each  milking  and  composite  weekly  tests  were 


Bulletin   323  GRAIN   FEEDING  FOR  DAIRY   COWS  7 

made  for  solids  and  butterfat  by  the  lactometer  method  and  Babcock 
test,  respectively,  in  the  milk  from  each  cow.  The  cows  were  weighed 
on  three  consecutive  days  at  the  beginning  and  the  close  of  the  experi- 
ments and  regularly  once  a  week  during  their  progress.  The  grain 
mixtures  fed  during  the  three  experiments  differed  somewhat  in  their 
component  parts  as  will  be  seen  below. 

GRAIN  MIXTURES  FED  ON  THE  EXPERIMENTS 

I  II  in 

Wheat  bran 400  320  300 

Rolled  barley 200  260  200 

Cocoanut  meal 100  200  200 

Beet  pulp 200  200 

Cottonseed  meal 50           100 

Owing  to  the  limited  number  of  cows  available  for  experimental 
purposes,  it  was  necessary  to  start  each  experiment  with  a  smaller 
number  than  is  considered  desirable  for  best  results,  and  cows  that 
freshened  later  on  were  paired  off  and  added  to  the  separate  lots  so 
that  these  retained,  so  far  as  possible,  their  similarity  with  regard  to 
important  factors  that  directly  influence  production.  The  cows  placed 
on  these  experiments  and  those  subsequently  added  are  given  under 
each  experiment  with  information  as  to  their  history,  production,  etc. 

EXPERIMENT  I,  FEBRUARY  13  TO  MAY  15,  1919 

The  experiment  was  commenced  February  13,  1919,  with  the  six- 
teen cows  included  in  the  following  list.  Eight  additional  cows  were 
included  later  on  during  the  first  period  of  the  experiment,  as  noted  below. 

As  in  the  other  experiments,  the  cows  were  fed  hay  in  racks  in  the 
corrals,  the  total  amounts  placed  before  them  being  weighed  out;  silage 
and  grain  rations  were  weighed  out  and  fed  twice  a  day  in  the  manger 
in  the  milking  barn.  The  cows  were  never  pastured  and  received  no 
other  feed  than  was  given,  except  in  a  couple  of  cases  as  noted  below. 
Corral  feeding  means  more  or  less  waste  of  feed  and,  in  the  rainy  season, 
unfavorable  conditions  from  muddy  corrals  in  most  dairies  in  the  interior 
valleys;  hence  a  decrease  in  production.  All  the  cows  in  the  herd  were, 
however,  on  an  equal  footing  in  these  respects.  The  production  of  the 
cows  on  the  experiment  for  each  grain  ratio  may  be  seen  from  Table  II. 

It  will  be  noted  that  on  the  ratio  of  1 : 5  the  cows  produced  in  all 
22,933.9  lbs.  milk  containing  2743.6  lbs.  solids  and  835.69  lbs.  butterfat, 
and  on  the  ratio  of  1:3,  22,704.5  lbs.  milk,  2786.8  lbs.  solids  and  831.73 
lbs.  butterfat.  So  far  as  is  known  it  took  very  nearly  similar  amounts 
of  hay  and  silage  with  both  ratios,  but  on  the  ratio  of  1:3,  7658  lbs.  of 
grain  were  fed,  against  4662  lbs.  on  the  ratio  of  1:5,  an  excess  of  close 
to  one  and  one-half  ton  of  grain  from  which  no  return  in  production  was 
received,  except  that  the  cows  put  on  some  extra  weight. 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


ts  m     "*ONOCOCDOOO 
fe~     »o  05  1>  CO  00  CO  "^  l> 


OC0C0051005OO 


g         CO  00  t*  CO  rt<  <N  lO  r-{ 

.to     r-i  rJH  IC  -HH  00  CO  CO  O 

X^"      rH  1—1  T-H  1— l  i— I  r- I 


a>  <-    CONNU3QHNH 


0505000^05050 

g  r-1  r*  ?"  ^  rT"1  r1  ^ 


g!  r3  NiOOOMONOO  I  tH 
&C  CO  <N  b-  r^  J>-  MH  ,-h  ^h  CO 
fig      -H-H  CO<^ 


t^COCOOO^CNKM^tH 
^00tOO5COCOCOO5 


lO  i— irtHiOCOCOCOiO 


lOOO^HCOrHCOOt^ 


OOiOOOKNOCO 

00O5rHO5O500rH00 
HNr- li— li— It- ti— (i— I 


00OiCO^(M»OO 

OOOCiOOON^iC 
CO-^rHrHQOCOOCO 


OOCOCOrH(Nr^O(N 


5cOi-liO00COO5CO 

2^  «  §  *  *  &-s 


(MTtiTtHiOcOCOCO(N 

O5rHlO-*t^00O5CO 

i— I        i-i  i— i  <N 


£;2 

o 

PQ 


a>  0 


OOCOrtt 
C<l  <M  rH  03 

CO  CO  CO  t^ 


k:    ^ 


B  <»    r^  05  05  CO 

^  rH  CO  CO  rH 


050  oo 
OO  OCO 
C5<M  <M  t^ 


<M  TfH  CO  00 

I    I    I    I 

Cq  Tt<  T*  OQ 


o  ooo 

9    C<l  <N  <N  <M 
0     (Nr-I(M  (N 


|1 

Or. 


05  050  O 
HHN1N 


o  ocoo 

(NNHH 

I    I    I    I 

CO  CO  CO  CO 


-°rQ    08   N 
PhPh.^ 


<HH  05(N  O 
TjH  1>  00  <n 


(N  00  05*0 


CO  CO  "^  tH         CO  iO  <N  -# 


O"*  CO  O 

MHC&O 

<M  (M  (M  rH 


lO  rH  O  O 

<N  CO  LO£r 

rH  rH  (M  00 


rH^CO- 
05  CO  "HH  (N 


o     oo 

O   <u  )>•  7~J 

rH    U  <M<N 

,-H   -r=     ,-3  _d 

S  °  £  <» 

4£r^fe 


oooi>5; 

OOrH         CO 


W  KW  WWW 

g  ?H  •      Sh      frH*      >>    Sh"      J-,"      f-4* 


WW   .     WW 

OOOMOObM 


_  WWW 
£  oooo 


www 

^'    Sh'    ^h 


C8    *h 

1 1-S-i 


s  2-q 


o  {» 

bC 


<«^   C   o8   fl   c8   OJ   oj   £ 
^  W  P  Ph  <  W  O  W  Ph 


c8   o   08 


•  S  ^  F 
I     o'-P   hC' 

02^2   08   O   o3   O 


-O 
.  (-1 

"H    -+J 

OPh 


T3 
d   , 

<D    08 

•  "   b£ 

08     CJ     S-^ 

Sd    '>->    G 
08  O  » 


Jr« 


Bulletin  323 


GRAIN    FEEDING   FOR   DAIRY    COWS 


CO       00 


i-4  l>  b-  00 

©  iH  O  (M 

O  b-  "«# 

io  co  oo 


h  a  s 

0D  <N       O 


O  r-i 

r-i  rfH 

00  CM 

<M  O 


0 

8 

a    . 

<N 

o 

'3  2 

00 

GO 

Q 

fc<J2 

<N 

co 

H 

C~ 

<N 

<N 

a 

fe 

fe 

3 

« 

>> 

O 

22  . 

C5 

*# 

H 

^    b0»! 

oo 

CN 

w 

>    * 

i— < 

<M 

o 

7—1 

i— i 

►3 

«! 

02 

> 

OS 

O 

* 

• 

O 

CO 

0 

^J 

O 

CO 

CO 

CO        OS 
"*        OS 

CO       CO 


o  oo 

oo  r- 

b-  00 

CO  CO 


CO 

t^ 

CXI 

O 

lO 

r^ 

<M 

<N 

T— 1 

<N      CO 


lO 

i—i 

lO 

1> 

CO 

CO 

LO 

OS 

i—l 

iO 

t^ 

OS 

oo 

CO 

1—1 

i— i 

i—i 

CO 

T* 

-* 

oo 

M    •      OS      Th 


t>-       CO 

i—i       iO 


S3  O 
73  « 


O       IO 

<M       IO 


O      IC 
<M       iO 


3     3 


^  5n 
o  > 
H     <3 


10  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

The  results  from  the  individual  cows  during  similar  periods  when 
they  were  fed  each  grair  ratio  have  been  analyzed,  with  the  results 
shown  in  Table  III. 

It  will  be  noted  that  there  is  a  general  decrease  in  production  and 
an  increase  in  weight  of  the  cows  both  going  from  light  to  heavy  grain 
feeding  and  from  heavy  to  light  grain.  Only  in  two  instances  was  an 
increase  in  production  observed  in  the  former  case,  and  not  in  any  in 
the  latter  case.  The  average  daily  production  for  these  cows  came  at 
24.9  lbs.  of  milk  and  .914  lbs.  butterfat  (average  per  cent.  3.67)  on  grain 
ratio  1:5,  with  an  average  body  weight  of  1175  lbs.  and  average  amount 
of  grain  fed  5.1  lbs.,  against  an  average  production  of  25.1  lbs.  milk  and 
.930  lbs.  butterfat  (average  percent.  3.70)  on  the  heavier  grain  feeding, 
with  an  average  body  weight  11 88  lbs.  and  average  amount  of  grain  fed  8.5 
lbs.,  an  insignificant  gain  in  production  of  about  one  per  cent,  with  an  in- 
crease of  forty  percent,  in  the  amount  of  grain  fed.  The  fat  content  of  the 
milk  was  evidently  not  affected  by  the  intensity  of  the  grain  feeding. 

EXPERIMENT  II,  MAY  29  TO  SEPTEMBER  3,  1919 

At  the  conclusion  of  the  experiment  described  above,  another  ex- 
periment along  the  same  line  with  a  different  grain  mixture  was  com- 
menced (see  p.  7) ;  most  of  the  cows  on  this  experiment  were  also  on 
the  first  one,  but  the  alignment  in  the  lots  differed  considerably.  Only 
twelve  cows  were  available  for  the  experiment  at  its  beginning,  two  cows 
being  added  at  the  close  of  the  fourth  week.  The  description  of  the 
cows  will  be  seen  from  Table  IV. 

The  summary  figures  obtained  with  these  cows  for  the  two  systems 
of  grain  feeding  are  shown  in  Table  V.  11,936.7  lbs.  milk  and  483,92 
lbs.  butterfat  were  produced  on  2492  lbs.  of  grain,  and  12,620.7  lbs.  milk 
and  516.21  lbs.  butterfat  on  4239  lbs.  grain,  with  approximately  the 
same  amounts  of  hay  and  silage  being  eaten  in  both  cases  so  far  as  we 
could  judge.  The  increase  in  production  of  butterfat  on  the  heavier 
grain  feeding  amounted  to  about  32  lbs.,  or  6%,  and  it  took  1747  lbs.  of 
grain  (70%  more)  to  produce  this  increase,  which,  however,  was  secured 
at  the  expense  of  some  body  weight  of  the  cows,  since  these  averaged 
ten  pounds  lighter  during  the  periods  of  heavy  grain  feeding  than  they 
did  on  light  grain  feeding. 

The  effect  of  the  two  systems  of  feeding  on  the  production  of  the 
individual  cows  on  the  experiment  will  be  seen  in  Table  VI. 

Here  again  it  appears  that  nearly  all  the  cows  yielded  less  milk  and 
butterfat  going  from  light  to  heavy  grain  feeding,  and  all  yielded  more 
going  the  other  way.  The  average  daily  production  of  these  cows  came 
at  21.8  lbs.  milk  and  .875  lbs.  butterfat  (4.02%)  on  the  ratio  of  1:5, 
and  22.  5  lbs.  milk  and  .904  lb.  butterfat  (4.02%)  on  the  ratio  of  1 : 3,  the 


Bulletin  323 


GRAIN   FEEDING   FOR   DAIRY    COWS 


11 


£,: 

GO 

j§£ 

£ 

o 

U 

c 

« 

n 

Ej3 

fe 

o- 

m 

h-l 

5 

H 

r<3 

0 

CO  W>  m 

i 

73 

5= 

rP  o3  « 

M 

*fcfS 

H 

a, 

H 

W 

£     • 

H 

GO 

1 

a* 

1 

6 

fe 

0 

ps, 

< 

s|jS 

o 

^" 

H 

"g 

(h 

^ 

IX  "o3  S 

ffl 

> 

^H 

> 

<! 

-^     . 

S£ 


COCOOiiOCOiCOMOOM1© 
<N  <M        rJH  CO  CO  i-H  h 


CO  00 
^  O 


CO  COH  OS 

I  I  I  I  I  + 1  I  I 


I      I 


CDNCO(NNHCOC5S(NOO 
<N  <N  to        b-        I>-        iO  Tti  lO 

i-H  i-H  <N 

I    +    I       I       I       I       I    +    I       I       I 


CDNiOO^^HOOH 
COOO^HOJCONOH 

<N(N<N<M<NCOCOCOiO 


O  OS 
i-H  GO 
<Ni-H 


N100505MMCOCDMON 
■^  CO  tO  00  OO  O  OJ  00  N  OHO 
THlMCOiMiHOOOOlMH^ 


00<OOST--iooi>OsOs^rH<M 
OSCO(NCOO0COtOl>l>CN<N 


(MTtH(M(NCOCOrtHCOiOCq(M 


lOHiOMOCOOiNNNffl 


ooosososT-ii>osT-iT)Hcooo 

CDOCOCONOCOCONN 
N©N©00OrH03^CDi0 


lOOOOOMOOlNCONCOCO 
NCDCOCOiHrHiOOUCCOCO 
^f-H^i-HeNKNlNt-ICOi-lrH 


^(MO^tlCQOOCOCO^OOCO 
(NCOiCCDOO>OCD(MONCD 
^MCOMhOiOOOKNh^ 


Oii— lOOCOOCO^'sH'-Hlr^O 

t^I>rHO0COCO'-H>— ICOCOCO 


OiOCOC^H^LOiOOCOM 
<MTti<N<MrfHCO"*COCO<M<N 

oooMHcomOHCO'*^ 

tOHCOCMMOOCOOlMON 

csoococoot^oooq^coco 

OOOONCOOO-HOINCOCO 


CD    CD 
g   ci  o  O 


,4 

d  ^ 

o3   (j   o3   0   oj   fl 


W^rtOW^pHp^^p 


»o  oo 

lO 
(N 

CO 


+ 


to 

CO    OS 
CO    00 


to 

CO 
<N    CO 


CO    tH 
00    <M 

CO 

OS 


00 

CO 

CO   <M 

o 


lOtOOS^OOT-Hl^COTlH 
CM  tjh  <M  <M  CN        HCON 

+ I ++ I ++++ 

4) 

a    co  toco  oocoo  co  oin  <m 

£       CO  CO  T-H   1-H   rti   Tfl  b-  CO  rfi  T-H 

SC  CO^^'cOi-KNi-lCO 

s  +7 i  i  i  ii  i  i  + 

(NCO^NCONCOHINN 
hOONMChNhO 

OOSrHOS(M(MCOOS 

MM    I    I    I    I  7  I 


'OSi-KMOCOOQtOcocO 

(MOJOOHOHNON 

CO  r-1  <N  (N  ^-1  i-H  tH  r-H 


OOOCONOi^ONiO 

Tticocoot^ost^oosco 

<M^<N0<IOs^O5t^(N<N 


0000COtO00r-H0<l'^cOCO 

ooi>cocooooooio^o 


OS  ^ 
i© 

CO 


tO  <* 

O  CO 

00  rH 


00  CO 
CO  00 


»OHH(MNcDOOOOcOO 
tO<NCOCOCO<NCNcO<N 


05^CCNOHINHU5H 


If 

■"O    go 

eo'-i 


(MNOCON^OHNffl 
IXNOOOSOSCNCOOOS 
i-HCOtOOSOSOstOOOOStO 


tO-*t>0'-iCO<NtO"'*CO 

CO^hioNtHOOhcO© 
CO(MCOCOCOi-HCOCO'-H 


totoi— los^ooir^r^ooto 

HNON^OJLOCDHCO 


10>CC©HNH005  05 
CO<NCO-*COCOCOCOt-I 


r-H>t^OSCO0000<M]>00 

-^NCD003  05NOOcO© 
IXNOStNOOi-HTjHOSOSOS 
i-HOStOOOOtOOOOtO 


00    tO      I— II— I 

-d-d 
o  o 

CD    0) 

PhPm 


00    CO 
^    <M 

o 
oo 


s  ™  ^^ 


OS   os 

CO 
CO 


CO    co 

OS 

oo 


I     ° 

o 
k3 


ai  fe 

-2  he 


CM 

03    O    °3 


2t5 

0<M 


c3 

dc_; 


c3    O 


O   O 


a)  a; 


Ui   cp 

^H    0) 

<v  as 
<N  iO 


-OT3 
O    O 


PLhPh 


12 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


■si 


«3   S 


r)<    O   H   M    iO   05 

«:  o  n  ®  a  co 

(M    N   IM    O    03    Oi 


«  S       *?  ^  ^  °?  "?  7 

^  ^      I     ^    O    N    N 


o  o  o  o  o  o 

CM    CM    ON    CM    CM    CM 


■^    lO    ^    H    ■*    CO 
N    (N    H  CM    CM 


°     $ 


-5    <3 


t       m     *h     -: 
o     *     08   -£ 


00    H    (^    o    ^    CO 
Oi    G5    O    t>    i— i    CX) 


h  0  h 

ooo 


6  6 


<  £  £  ■* 

ph  j* 

o 

h3 


S  s  .a 

H     *-•     d 


CO   OJ   C)iO    (N    O 
H    ff)H    COIN    O) 

N    lO   O    ©   N   »C 

b- 

00 

co 

Ifl 

-* 

»h 

CO 

o 

r> 

01 

(N 

Ol 

O 

co 

rH 

CO 

TtH 

CO 

on 

Oi 

io 

00 

iH 

i— l 

01 

i—i 

rH 

'""' 

rH 

(N  CO  O  "*  N  O 
^  CO  00  h  h  ® 
O)    IN    N   OJ   O   (N 


tjh    iO    OS    OS 


t^    CM 

(N    CO    M    N    (M   N 


^         •      Sh*      l-H      f-3      M 

OMOOOO 


03 


pq 


CM    CM     03 

£&5'3  1 
S  Ph  «<  << 


o 

Ol 

CO   N   "*    N    oo 

oo  o  o  a  co 

co 

■*    to   N   iO   O 

o 

Ol 

O    iO 

iO   (N    CO 

Ol 

CO 
CO 

00    CO 
CO    CO 

r-l    i-l 

O   ©   CO 

00    CO    OS 
rH     i-l     CM 

o 

00 

CO 

CO 

, ; 

.M 

r 

3 

in 

9 

>s 

7 

co 

CO 

CM 

CM 

d 

d 

3 

9 

y-i 

»-? 

CO 

^ 

oj  m 

to 

CO 

Ph^ 

Oi 

cd 

Ol 

CM 

■X  . 

r~J  to 

CO 

l^ 

25       oo         cm 

^~  ,-1  rH 


^    .         CO  CO 

.    m  O  CO 


O 

o 

o 

o 

ro 

o 

CM 

01 

Ol 

01 

fN 

CM 

^3 

*■ 

** 

« 

00 

lO 

co 

Ol 

rA 

TfH 

§ 

CM 

01 

1— 1 

Qs 

u 

d 

5^,0,0,0 

Ph     03      03      03 
<]    fe    f^    fe 

S 

© 

CO 

to 

r^ 

OS 

>o 

(N 

r^ 

CO 

■*S 

CM 

OS 

tO 

1—1 

CO 

to 

CO 

"*3 

i-H 

1 — 1 

rH 

T-H 

i—i 

1—1 

^ 

4J    g 
>> 


ft 

< 


o     i  jp    o 

**>        a  J- 


Bulletin  323 


GRAIN   FEEDING   FOR  DAIRY   COWS 


13 


OS        00 

CO      o 
r-     oo 


OS        TjH 

CO      o 
b-       00 


S.       os     b- 

3i  %  B 

£  —      to      b- 


co     .co 

^H        CM 

O 
CO 


i-i      o 
o      b- 


1— I      ^ 

CO 


el         00      tP 


b-  CD 
^h  O 
CM       CM 


•^  Mm 


00        i-H 

O         i-H 


Tf<         OS 
00         OS 

o     o 


^ 

<N 

i^ 

IO 

<M 

CO 

CO 

oo 

Ol 

-p 

OS 

OS 

OS 

00 

^H 

t^ 

CM 

OS 

C3   eg 

lO 

t^i 

CO 

<M 

CO 

CO 

*tf 

CO 

oo 

t^ 

t^ 

<m 

CM 

TJH 

CM 

CM 

iO 

H 

3 

CO 

CO 
00 

<M 

iO 
1> 

(Sh 

X 

w 

02 

g 

3 

00 
00 

OS 
1> 

2=2 

00 
<M 

CO 

& 

CO 

iO 

GQ 

> 

§i 

•3  8 

CO 

CO 

^    1 

OS 

n 
3 

6  as 

CM 

CM 

H 

o3        o3 


CO  i-H 
CO  CM 
OS 


PQ    ^ 

o      o 
vA     vA 


o 

CO 

<tf 

° 

CO 

CO 

OS 

CO 

iO 

CM 

CM 

iO 

03 
bO 

4J  CD 

O        > 


14 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


I    & 


■s 


E-2 
O 


1fc' 


£* 


TtH    CO   O   Ci   CM    to   CO 

IO    i-l    H     t-H     r-t    i-H     CO 
+    +    +    +    +    +    + 


I         I         I      +    + 


H  N  ION  ©  »  H 

OJ  H  CD    »0  CO  IO  H 

O  IN  O    iO  rh  IN  CM 

i-H  COH 

I  I  I   I  I  I  I 


o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

U3 

CM 

r^ 

r^ 

r- 

(N 

CM 

CO 

r^ 

»* 

»o 

io 

CD 

ic 

»0 

i—i 

00 

CI 

Ol 

CO 

Ol 

CO 

Ol 

t-H 

o 
cm 

oo  to 

CM    O 

CO    00 


CO  OS  to  Ol  ^ 
02  CM  CO  CO  CO 
CM    i-i    O    O    O 


t-H    CO    O    00    CO 
N    O    H    ffl    CO 

OS    00 
00    CO 

to 

CO 

o 

OS 
00 

©    CO    OS    N    i-H 

co  co  co  -^  ^ 

to    OS 
CM     i-H 

00 
CO 
CM 

©    CO    N    00    H    H    H 


i-i  OS 
CM  t* 
I-   1> 


O    00N    00O) 

x*     N    N     CM     TjH 

O00ONC0 


CO     os 


tO    o 
x#     CM 

to 

to 


o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

CO 

on 

00 

r^ 

CO 

"tf 

on 

o 

00 

-h 

CO 

CO 

</•• 

o 

Ol 

CO 

IN 

oo 

i—i 

" 

Ol 

Ol 

CM 

i— i 

CM 

1—1 

tF  CM  CO  O  CO  IN  00 
N  Ol  00  H  iO  H  © 
CM    IN    CM    i-i    O    ©    OS 


3  'S 


§  3  .s 

•73    ^   W    „ 

'2     »     O    cj 


fc      « 


5  "|  J  3    £    of 


CO     Tt<     TjH 
TJH     TJH     t-H 

Ol 

<* 

CO 

o 

CO 

o 

OS 

OS 

tO 

Ol 
OS 

HlOlO 
CO     CO     ^ 

to 

** 

Ol 
Ol 

to 

to 

CM 

o 

GO 

Ol 

>o 

t^ 

o 

o 

CM 

CO 

,_| 

o 

r^ 

T* 

co 

tH 

oo 

OS 

CO 

co 

Ol 

-t-1 

co 

Ol 

o 

CM 

00 

01 

oo 

00 

co 
1—1 

o 

i-H 

00 

CO 

CM 

CO 

4 

Eh 

O      CD 

CD 


CO  CO  O  CM  CO  O  i-i 
CO  CO  CO  CM  CO  CO  CO 

+++++++ 


CO    N  M«    00  N  N 

O  OS  to  00  to  OS  o 

(N    ^HCOHIN 

+  i  i  i  i  7  + 

CO   CO  OS   00  OS  to  CO 

H    N  CO    00    CO  CO  N 

CX)    H  rt*    CO    CO  H  CO 

CM  ,-1    ,-H  tHH 

I   I   I   I 


o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

Ol 

Ol 

iO 

o 

CO 

o 

01 

to 

N 

-f 

Of) 

o 

-V 

o 

>o 

CO 

CM 

1—1 

0) 

Ol 

Ol 

00  CO  00  00  to  to  rJH 
OO  Co  IO  N  O  CO  CO 
O  Ol  00  OS  i-H  CO  i-i 


b-    CM 

rtl    00 

©    CM 
tO    i-H 

»o   CO   CM 
tO    CM    O 

iN 

CO 

Ol 

CO' 

O    OS 

t^    t-H 

CM    00 

CO    CO 

"*    CM    CM 

CO    -cH    t-H 

OS 
CM 

IO 

00 

tO 

CO 

Ol 

01 

1—1 

t-H 

T-H 

i-H 

r^ 

-f 

1—1 

00 

tO 

00 

N 

o 

Ol 

OS 

r}H 

-+ 

OS 

CO 

N 

X* 

fN 

OS 

<* 

CO 

OS 

05 

- 

T-H 

CO 

to 

o 

o 

© 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

Ol 

r^ 

CO 

<* 

00 

o 

on 

^ 

-^ 

on 

co 

CO 

OS 

to 

»o 

^H 

Of) 

N 

co 

01 

01 

co 

co 

LO 

CM 

CM  1>  00  CO  OS  to  CO 
to  to  CM  IO  CO  CO  o 
O  CM  00  OS  O  CO  t-h 


rjn    IN 

CO    ^    CO 

O    OS    t-H 

O    to 
CM    OS 

CO 

OS 

00   rt< 
CO    CM 

xHH     ,-H    CO 

CO    HH     CO 

tO     T-H 
tO     T-H 

CM 

CM 

00 

T-H 

<tf 

CO 

i-H 

In 

In 

xtf 

Ol 

Ol 

ifl 

i-H 

o 

Ol 

oo 

to 

CO 

-H 

o 

1-H 

OS 

on 

SO 

r- 

TH 

CM 

c 

1^ 

r^ 

o 

o 

*o 

Ol 

tHH 

'-* 

i— i 

FH 

'"H 

CO 

73  XJ 

CM  CM 

+»g  bo 

g-3  M 


pq  Ph  g  Ph  <1  <^ 


fcJO 


Bulletin  323 


GRAIN   FEEDING  FOR  DAIRY    COWS 


15 


o 

It 


S<n   OOOOfN^t^T^O'* 
5:2  ©H^OOONOiO 

^  t— I  >— I  i— (  rH  i—l  i— I 


£       OOOOOOOO 

P-2    050(MffiCOlN05H 
O  1— I  rH  t-H  i— I  i-H 


oo 


<N  CO 


lONONINO 


oooo     o     o 

©  <N1  (N  £<l  <N        C^        <N 

o  eococf  »o  ©  o*^  co~ 

oNhhh^hKin 

*  .    ^      .P_ 

/5  cj-q  ^m  °«  op- 


OiOOtOHOOMNliN 


H^        Q 


73  03    03 

»     ^'    ^    3    2^    >> 


oooooooopo 

NOSCON^MOO    05 
H(M05NCOIOO(N    H 


HOO^ON^iOM    O 


OO 


OO 


^ooSsoo 


Tt<OCOOO(M(NOM    h 
HOINNONH©    Oi 

MH  t-H  (M  0<1  i-H  (N      T-* 


w 

OK 


2    • 

wwoo 


^4,4,4,44,    4,4,4,44 


X^PP^^        PPP^2P 
J)    O    Ol    (U    Q)  03    03    03    03    03 

PhPhPhPhPh      PhPhPhPhPh 


^       00CO(N  <M  -^        <M  00< 
"g  ra   t^  CO  t-I  b-  OS        tOi> 

fe~   -<tf  C7>  CO  CO  lO        COO' 


O  O  iO 
M  .     .     -b-co 

S  m   <N  <N  00 


B  OO^  O  O 
.m  <N  Oi-i  CO  <N 
,>>J2  b-  CO  <N  O  O 


■g    « 


6q 


i-i       o 

CONHT)<H 
CO  00  COCO  <N 


c3  P  P  P  .jTP 
5  X>,0,Q        ,D 

2  ^O    +3    +3         •    +3 

3  O   O   O   o   o 


P^  tH  ": 


CO     :  coco  O 


s  TO 


I  M  M  w  ^  ^ 


o  *o  io^  co  P 

^H  i-H  lOOO      S 
,-H  COH  i-t  a 


OO^ON O 

ONONN  *.£ 

H-^NNiO  o 

T-H    T— I                         1— I  O 


d 

CO  1>  00  OOi-H 

COrHCOrHCO    © 


P  ,.-'d  p  P 
03  ^  03  03  o 
uCt   t-i   u   u 

p       £,0^ 


-+J     o  +=  *s  4-3       « 

O  <C  O  o  o    2 


:<*©©■ 


WW   . 

Sh  Si  3  . 

OOOhJM 


^CO 
03 


<tf    03 


T3 


pdJ2:S  $£ 


03  L2  4-3    O    TO    TO    03 


:  03  OicH 

£-43°ph"s 


,2~ 

O    03 


03  J/2 


03 


TO 
M 

p3^£ 

03    W.2       .       . 

£>     03    -+J  H_  «4-H       I 

be  o  jtf  _<a  pq 


03 


o§^ 


aa.SH 


p^phOo^^w^oa 


a  ^ 


16 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Oi 

CO 


■2   • 


ffi£ 


(-T        >  £ 


SS 


a     ^: 


CO 

,_, 

CO 

o 

CD 

iO 

1> 

00 

>£    -h 


e3  O 


o     eo 


co       CO 
CO        <M 

CO 
CO 


o 

T^H 

<* 

1^ 

iH 

<N 

CO 

rH 

S      OS 

"# 

CO 

CO 

IC 

T* 

OS 

OS 

5       "* 

^ 

OS 

1— 1 

CO 

"*h 

r^ 

i> 

O 

t^- 

1> 

1^ 

t+i 

IO 

CO 

iO 

1> 

CO 

«C 

^ 

cc 

^> 

i  » 

CC 

£ 

c 

CO 

t^ 

c 

• 

CC 

OC 

CO 

c 

t> 

e 

e 

'3 

'5 

Eh 

'5 

& 

3         bJ 

3 

b 

3          faj 

3 
) 

bJ 

> 

> 

3           S 

■» 

bfl 

K 

H 

"S 

c3 

5n 

w 

« 

FS 

o3 

+3 

cu 

•+j 

0) 

< 

pq 

c 

> 

pq 

<1 

c 

< 

-M 

4^ 

-^ 

+3 

O 

o 

o 

o 

^ 

h-5. 

h^ 

£ 

Bulletin  323 


GRAIN   FEEDING   FOR   DAIRY    COWS 


17 


CO 

I  I  I 


I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I 


I  I  I  I  I  II  I 


I  I 


Jls- 

5 


o 

•a 


■^ 

K 

-|M 

O 

CO 

R 

0 

■g 

h-1 

CL 

M  to 


S* 


I    I    I 


thcOcOCOOOcOOOiO 

HHCOONOiOO 


b-  00  <<H  lO 

I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I 


OOiiOcOTtHOSiCt^r^iOOS 


iO  -*  »-o 

1>CD  00 


iCO^^ti'^i-HiMTtiCO 
TJH  CO         CONN 


1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1 

OC^KN-^TtHTjHOiOOOcD^ 

O 

00 

HNMtDHioOHiCNH 
CDCOOiM^lONr-lO^N 
i-l  t-1  t-H  t-I  rH  t-I          COM 

O 

CD 

LO 

HOHlOHNlCOOCOJ 

•^OHNIMCOOOCOOOCO 

osi-Hoaoioqcii-icocooioi 


«OMHcD003HNh»0© 
NHNOOO^C0  05  00CO 


C0  05^CD02N05MNCDO 
NHNHHCq  CO  i—l  rH 


NC0  05C0»OOHC0  00»O05 


C<l  rH  iO  W  ^  iO  00  O  N  io  io 

(MOCONOOOrHOt^lO 

COCO^CN*Or}HCOCi*OrHrH 


rCOOOCOTfiCO<M"*COCO<MO 


COCDOiOCOr-KM^OiiOCO 
©OOHoOOOOCOOONfN'* 


Nc005Tt(i0O00C0»0HO 
•hh  CO  rH  -<H  -hh  i— lOOCOfONCO 
OOMONOiOCONOiO 


iOiC05CON(M0100NNO 

(NMNlMC^N  <N  CN  rH 


V 


^ 


-t:  b/o  S?  £  H  -h  if  Fl  «  -?  ^ 


43   o3 


-rl      r*      -     — 

^  ^Ph^HWO<1<1PhOC) 

-(-3 

o 
►3 


iO  <M 
lO  1> 


b-  rH 


O  CO 
CM 

oo 


O  CO 
tH  00 


N(N^©0!iHCO©^000 

O    lO 

NC0H00MOC0  00  10HO5 
OiCO'OrHNONCOiCNiO 

co^o^o-rticDTtHoat^iOi— ii— i 

CD    00 

b-      T-H 

T)*C0HC0NffiOHNO5  00 
OOrHiOOiOOOOt^CDCOiOiO 

"H'lococoiocqcd    '  <m  co 
I    I    I    I    I    I    I    I    I    I    I 


(MOOliO>0  03Hffi05iOOQ 


(NcO'HHCOCO^t^00COCO<N 
CO  N  CO  00  05  lO  CO  T)H  CO  rH 


1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1 

COCOCOTtl'rtlTHOCOO'HH'HH 

O 

T^     O 

ONNOOfOOMcDfONCO 

rHrHOOt^TJHtOCOCNICOCNICO 

a>  co 

CD 

00 

(NHCXlOJOOH<H<cOOO(N 
NOCOCDHr- it^NN^N 
CMOt^CNNiOCNICO^OOt^ 


COfOcOHMTOCDCDNHO 
CMCOOKN  rH  rH  rH  rH  rH 


lO-HHOOOi(NrHCNlrHCO»OOi 

NN^'0(N(N05HC0^05 
COOCONC003^05'00005 

COlOCO^OCNCOCOrHlOtNrH 


t^CNJOOOtHOCOcDcDOO 


CONrHiOOiOiOl^COCDO 
rHl>Oit^O:i—i>OLO^C500 

NINHH  rHrH  rH 


oonoocono^ooiooo 

O0  O  CD  CO  lO  CO  Ol  •*  CO  H  CO 
NON(MCO»CHCD^(X)N 


t^OOOiOOCNOOOiCOCDiO 

OOrHCO'OOO-HHrH^HHlOCNrH 


2 

J  & 


W  O^O^PhWQPWOO 


lO    *0 
O   CO 


3U 


OS    "3 

1— I 

CO 


O   l> 


N^N^NOCOiOiOOrH 

CO  oo 

HHCOO-HiONCOiMOHM 

COOOOilOCN^frHOOOCNrH 
^-lOCOCO-HHTHlOrHCDCOCNJ 

b-  b- 

O     rH 

0>       CD 


18  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA-— EXPERIMENT    STATION 

average  body  weight  being  five  pounds  lighter  in  the  latter  case  than 
in  the  former.  The  increase  in  the  amount  of  grain  eaten  by  these  cows 
was  67%.  As  in  Experiment  I,  the  average  percent,  of  fat  in  the  milk 
remained  unchanged  by  the  method  of  feeding  followed. 

EXPERIMENT  III,  JANUARY  21  TO  APRIL  8,  1920 

This  experiment  was  commenced  on  January  21st  with  sixteen  cows, 
ten  more  being  added  later  on.  It  was  continued  for  eleven  weeks 
after  the  close  of  the  preliminary  week.  The  description  of  the  cows 
included  on  the  experiment  is  given  in  Table  VII  and  the  summary 
results  for  the  two  systems  of  grain  feeding  (1  lb.  per  3J^  and  7  lbs.  of 
butterfat  produced  per  week)  will  be  seen  in  Table  VIII. 

Table  IX  presents  the  results  obtained  with  the  individual  cows 
included  on  the  experiment  on  going  from  heavy  to  light  grain  feeding, 
and  vice  versa. 

The  results  obtained  in  this  experiment  go  in  the  same  direction  as 
those  of  the  preceding  ones,  but  the  advantage  from  the  heavy  over  the 
light  grain  feeding  is  more  marked  than  in  these,  viz.,  an  increase  of 
14%  in  the  production  of  milk  and  9%  in  the  production  of  butterfat 
as  a  result  of  feeding  a  little  over  a  ton  more  grain,  with  possible  minor 
changes  in  the  amounts  of  roughage  eaten  by  the  cows.  The  possible 
causes  of  this  more  pronounced  reaction  than  that  obtained  in  either 
of  the  previous  experiments  cannot  be  fully  discussed  here,  but  it  may  be 
suggested  that  it  may  be  due  to  the  relatively  larger  amount  of  grain 
fed  on  this  experiment  or  a  somewhat  poorer  quality  of  roughage  fed 
to  the  cows,  especially  silage.  It  is  plain  that  even  in  this  case  the  cost 
of  the  extra  grain  fed  is  greater  than  what  the  increase  in  butterfat  would 
bring  even  at  retail  prices,  so  that  the  result  of  this  experiment  alone 
furnishes  no  argument  in  favor  of  a  heavy  system  of  grain  feeding. 

SUMMARY  OF  EXPERIMENTS  I  TO  III 

The  total  amounts  of  milk,  solids  and  butterfat  produced  under  the 
two  systems  of  feeding  grain  studied  in  these  experiments  have  been 
compiled  and  are  presented  in  Table  X. 

Table  X. — Summary  Results,  Experiments  I  to  III 

Light  Heavy 

grain  grain 

feeding  feeding  Increase 

Total  Amt.  of  milk  produced,  lbs.  46,664  48,805  5% 

Total  solids,  lbs 5,872  6,201  5 

Butterfat,  lbs 1,839.5  1,915.2  4 

Ave.  weight  of  cows,  lbs 1,158  1,157 

Total  amt.  of  grain  fed,  lbs 7,076  15,992  79 


Bulletin  323  GRAIN  FEEDING  FOR  DAIRY  COWS  19 

The  general  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  this  is  evidently  that  only 
a  slight  improvement  in  production  can  be  expected  by  feeding  a  large 
amount  of  grain  to  ordinary  good  dairy  cows  receiving  a  liberal  basal 
ration  of  alfalfa  hay  and  silage.  The  cows  on  these  experiments  re- 
ceived, on  the  average,  4.2  lbs.  of  grain  on  light  feeding  and  7.5  lbs.  per 
head  daily  on  heavy  grain  feeding.  The  first  experiments,  which  in- 
cluded a  larger  number  of  cows  than  the  other  two,  failed  to  show  any 
improvement  in  production  at  all  as  a  result  of  more  intensive  grain 
feeding,  while  in  the  two  other  experiments  an  increase  of  6%  and  9% 
were  secured.  We  conclude,  therefore,  that  under  conditions  similar 
to  those  that  obtained  in  these  experiments,  heavy  grain  feeding  does 
not  give  marked  returns  and  does  not  pay. 

This  result  is  corroborated  by  the  findings  of  the  Vermont5  and 
Wisconsin6  stations  among  others,  both  of  which  showed  conclusively 
"the  folly  of  heavy  grain  feeding"  for  common  dairy  herds.  The  con- 
clusion does  not  exclude  the  possibility  of  heavy  grain  feeding  being 
advisable  in  individual  cases,  for  heavy-producing  animals,  especially 
growing  heifers,  or  where  cows  are  fed  for  production  records  where  the 
economy  of  feeding  is  of  only  minor  importance.  Examples  from  among 
the  cows  included  in  the  preceding  experiments  can  no  doubt  be  found 
where  the  result  of  increasing  the  grain  allowance  was  followed  by  an 
improvement  in  production  that  fully  covered  the  increased  cost  of 
the  ration,  but  as  a  general  proposition,  in  feeding  even  a  good  dairy 
herd  averaging  toward  a  pound  of  butterfat  a  day  per  head,  the  economic 
limit  of  grain  feeding  is  considerably  below  a  ratio  of  a  pound  of  grain 
per  three  pounds  of  milk,  or  seven  pounds  of  grain  per  pound  of  butter- 
fat  when  ample  amounts  of  roughage  of  at  least  fair  quality  are  supplied. 
If  such  is  not  the  case,  as,  for  instance,  in  periods  of  short  hay  crops  and 
abnormally  high  hay  prices,  heavy  grain  feeding  may  be  advisable; 
relative  prices  of  coarse  and  concentrated  feeds  must  determine  whether 
the  amount  of  the  former  had  better  be  reduced  and  concentrates  cor- 
respondingly increased,  or  vice  versa. 

At  the  average  market  prices  during  the  last  year  or  two,  the  cost 
of  the  two  classes  of  feeds  has  very  closely  approximated  their  relative 
feeding  value.  The  average  retail  price  of  four  leading  kinds  of  hay  on 
the  San  Francisco  market  during  the  past  season  has  thus  been  $26.50, 
and  that  of  fifteen  standard  concentrates  (grain,  mill  feeds  and  other 
concentrates  of  similar  nutritive  value),  $63.77.  This  is  a  ratio  of 
1 : 2.4  or  close  to  the  unit  value  of  hay  according  to  the  feed  unit  system. 
When  concentrates,  therefore,  cost  more  than  2.4  or  2.5  times  as  much 
as  average  hay,  they  are  relatively  expensive  and  should  be  used  sparing- 

5  Report  15  (1902)  page  284.       6  Report  16  (1899)  page  52. 


20 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT   STATION 


AVERAGE  PROWCTW  QFX/LKAND 

BUTTERFAT  —  PER  COhT  DAILY 


Light  Grain  Feedihg 


HmvyGMMFEEnm 


EXPERIMENT 

I 


m 


MILK 


BUTTERFAT 


KllK 

AUZMQE  PRODUCTION 

26.2  lbs. 

■ 25.9  « 

.- 213  " 

22.5  " 

..-.  16.7  " 

19.1    " 

BUTTERFAT 

.955  lbs. 

.951    « 

.864   " 

922  " 

735  - 

.802  « 

pmm  foralitrials 

21.8lbs. 

22.8  « 

.859  " 

.894  « 


ly.  If  less  than  two  and  one-half  times  the  price  of  hay,  they  are  relative- 
ly cheap  even  though  their  price  is  three  times  that  which  they  com- 
manded a  few  years  ago. 

The  general  practice  of  dairy  farmers  is,  however,  to  feed  their  cows 
all  the  hay  and  other  roughage  that  they  will  clean  up  with  a  relish  and 
to  feed  concentrates  in  proportion  to  the  production  of  the  cows.  The 
experiments  here  reported  are  directly  applicable  to  this  practice  and 
their  teachings  may  be  accepted  as  sound  in  view  of  the  evidence  pre- 
sented. The  subject  of  dairy  economics  is  a  very  complex  one  and 
there  are  many  factors  having  a  bearing  on  the  question  of  the  best 
system  of  feeding  to  be  adopted,  like  kind  of  cows  kept,  returns  received 


Bulletin  323  GRAIN  FEEDING  FOR  DAIRY  COWS  21 

for  the  dairy  products,  sources  of  feeding  supplies,  distance  from  markets 
overhead  expenses,  etc.  The  feed  is  the  largest  single  item  in  the  cost 
of  producing  milk,  making  up  from  50%  to  75%  of  the  total  cost,  and 
a  careful  consideration  of  ways  and  means  of  keeping  down  the  feed 
cost  is  therefore  a  most  important  factor  in  successful  dairying,  especially 
under  present-day  prices  of  feed,  labor  and  supplies.  It  is  hoped  that 
the  study  of  the  relative  economy  of  heavy  and  light  grain  feeding 
furnished  by  the  experiments  reported  in  this  bulletin  will  aid  dairy 
farmers  in  deciding  upon  a  practice  of  feeding  their  cows  that  will  avoid 
unnecessary  waste  and  thus  aid  in  increasing  the  profits  from  the  dairy. 

CONCLUSION 

In  the  three  experiments  with  cows  in  the  University  dairy  herd 
reported  in  this  bulletin,  the  method  of  feeding  grain  in  the  ratio  of  one 
pound  per  every  five  pounds  of  milk,  or  three  and  one-half  times  as  much 
as  the  amount  of  butterfat  produced  by  the  cows,  yielded  within  5% 
as  good  results,  on  the  average,  as  a  ratio  of  one  pound  of  grain  per  three 
pounds  of  milk,  or  seven  pounds  of  grain  per  pound  of  butterfat,  re- 
spectively. This  result  is  in  accord  with  similar  experiments  conducted 
elsewhere,  and  suggests  that  home-grown  coarse  feeds  should  form  the 
basis  for  economical  dairy  rations  and  that  when  supplied  in  ample 
amounts  and  of  at  least  fair  quality,  they  need  only  be  supplemented  by 
medium  amounts  of  grain  feeds  such  as  supplied  in  the  proportion  of 
one  pound  per  five  pounds  of  milk,  or  one-half  as  much  grain  per  day  as 
the  cows  produce  butterfat  in  a  week. 


STATION  PUBLICATIONS  AVAILABLE  FOR  FREE  DISTRIBUTION 


No. 
168. 

169. 
185. 

208. 
250. 
251. 


252. 
253. 

257. 
261. 
262. 

263. 
266. 

267. 
268. 
270. 


271. 
272. 
273. 

274. 

275. 

276. 
277. 
278. 
279. 
280. 

282. 

283. 


Observations  on  Some  Vine  Diseases  in 
Sonoma  County. 

Tolerance  of  the  Sugar  Beet  for  Alkali. 

Report  of  Progress  in  Cereal  Investiga- 
tions. 

The  Late  Blight  of  Celery. 

The  Loquat. 

Utilization  of  the  Nitrogen  and  Organic 
Matter  in  Septic  and  Imhoff  Tank 
Sludges. 

Deterioration  of  Lumber. 

Irrigation  and  Soil  Conditions  in  the 
Sierra  Nevada  Foothills,  California. 

New  Dosage  Tables. 

Melaxuma  of  the  Walnut,  "  Juglans  regia." 

Citrus  Diseases  of  Florida  and  Cuba 
Compared  with  Those  of  California. 

Size  Grades  for  Ripe  Olives. 

A  Spotting  of  Citrus  Fruits  Due  to  the 
Action  of  Oil  Liberated  from  the  Rind. 

Experiments  with  Stocks  for  Citrus. 

Growing  and  Grafting  Olive  Seedlings. 

A  Comparison  of  Annual  Cropping,  Bi- 
ennial Cropping,  and  Green  Manures 
on  the  Yield  of  Wheat. 

Feeding  Dairy  Calves  in  California. 

Commercial  Fertilizers. 

Preliminary  Report  on  Kearney  Vine- 
yard Experimental  Drain. 

The  Common  Honey  Bee  as  an  Agent  in 
Prune  Polination. 

The  Cultivation  of  Belladonna  in  Cali- 
ornia. 

The  Pomegranate. 

Sudan  Grass. 

Grain  Sorghums. 

Irrigation  of  Rice  in  California. 

Irrigation  of  Alfalfa  in  the  Sacramento 
Valley. 

Trials  with  California  Silage  Crops  for 
Dairy  Cows. 

The  Olive  Insects  of  California. 


BULLETINS 
No. 
285. 
286. 
288. 


290. 

297. 
298. 
299. 
300. 
301. 

302. 

303. 
304. 

308.  I 


309.  I 

310. 
311. 
312. 
313. 
314. 
316. 
317. 
318. 
319. 
320. 
321. 
322. 
323. 

324. 

325. 


The  Milch  Goat  in  California. 

Commercial  Fertilizers. 

Potash  from  Tule  and  the  Fertilizer 
Value  of  Certain  Marsh  Plants. 

The  June  Drop  of  Washington  Navel 
Oranges. 

The  Almond  in  California. 

Seedless  Raisin  Grapes. 

The  Use  of  Lumber  on  California  Farms. 

Commercial  Fertilizers. 

California  State  Dairy  Cow  Competition, 
1916-18. 

Control  of  Ground  Squirrels  by  the 
Fumigation  Method. 

Grape  Syrup. 

A  Study  on  the  Effects  of  Freezes  on 
Citrus  in  California. 
Fumigation  with  Liquid  Hydrocianic 
Acid.  II.  Physical  and  Chemical  Pro- 
perties of  Liquid  Hydrocianic  Acid. 
The  Carob  in  California.  II.  Nutri- 
tive Value  of  the  Carob  Bean. 

Plum  Pollination. 

Investigations  with  Milking  Machines. 

Mariout  Barley. 

Pruning  Yound  Deciduous  Fruit  Trees. 

Cow-Testing  Associations  in  California. 

The  Kaki  or  Oriental  Persimmon. 

Selections  of  Stocks  in  Citrus  Propagation. 

The  Effects  of  Alkali  on  Citrus  Trees. 

Caprifigs  and  Caprification. 

Control  of  the  Coyote  in  California. 

Commercial  Production  of  Grape  Syrup. 

The  Evaporation  of  Grapes. 

Heavy  vs.  Light  Grain  Feeding  for  Dairy 
Cows. 

Storage  of  Perishable  Fruit  at  Freezing 
Temperatures. 

Rice  Irrigation  Measurements  and  Ex- 
periments in  Sacramento  Valley,  1914- 
1919. 


CIRCULARS 


No. 

65.  The  California  Insecticide  Law. 

70.  Observations    on    the    Status    of    Corn 
Growing  in  California. 

76.  Hot  Room  Callusing. 

82.  The      Common     Ground      Squirrels      of 
California. 

87.  Alfalfa. 
109.  Community  or  Local  Extension  Work  by 
the  High  School  Agricultural  Depart- 
ment. 
111.  The  use  of  Lime  and  Gypsum  on  California 
Soils. 

113.  Correspondence  Courses  in  Agriculture. 

114.  Increasing  the  Duty  of  Water. 

115.  Grafting  Vinifera  Vineyards. 

117.  The  Selection  and  Cost  of  a  Small  Pump- 
ing Plant. 
124.  Alfalfa  Silage  for  Fattening  Steers. 

126.  Spraying  for  the  Grape  Leaf  Hopper. 

127.  House  Fumigation. 

128.  Insecticide  Formulas. 

129.  The  Control  of  Citrus  Insects. 

130.  Cabbage  Growing  in  California. 

131.  Spraying  for  Control  of  Walnut  Aphis. 
133.  County  Farm  Adviser. 

No. 

135.  Official  Tests  of  Dairy  Cows. 

136.  Melilotus  Indica. 

137.  Wood  Decay  in  Orchard  Trees. 

138.  The  S'lo  in  California  Agriculture. 

139.  The  Generation  of  Hydrocyanic  Acid  Gas 

in  Fumigation  by  Portable  Machines. 


No. 
140. 


143. 

144. 
147. 
148. 
152. 

153. 

154. 

155. 
156. 
157. 
158. 
159. 
160. 
164. 
165. 

167. 
168. 


170. 

172. 
173. 
174. 


The  Practical  Application  of  Improved 
Methods  of  Fermentation  in  California 
Wineries  during  1913  and  1914. 

Control  of  Grasshoppers  in  Imperial 
Valley. 

Oidium  or  Powdery  Mildew  of  the  Vine. 

Tomato  Growing  in  California. 

"Lungworms". 

Some  Observations  on  the  Bulk  Handling 
of  Grain  in  California. 

Announcement  of  the  California  State 
Dairy  Cow  Competition,  1916-18. 

Irrigation  Practice  in  Growing  Small 
Fruits  in  California. 

Bovine  Tuberculosis. 

How  to  Operate  an  Incubator. 

Control  of  the  Pear  Scab. 

Home  and  Farm  Canning. 

Agriculture  in  the  Imperial  yalley. 

Lettuce  Growing  in  California. 

Small  Fruit  Culture  in  California. 

Fundamentals  of  Sugar  Beet  Culture 
under  California  Conditions. 

Feeding  Stuffs  of  Minor  Importance. 

Spraying  for  the  Control  of  Wild  Morning- 
Glory  within  the  Fog  Belt. 

The  1918  Grain  Crop. 

Fertilizing  California  Soils  for  the  1918 
Crop. 

Wheat  Culture. 

The  Construction  of  the  Wood-Hoop  Silo. 

Farm  Drainage  Methods. 


CIRCULARS — Continued 


No. 

175.  Progress  Report  on  the   Marketing  and 

Distribution  of  Milk. 

176.  Hog  Cholera  Prevention  and  the  Serum 

Treatment. 

177.  Grain  Sorghums. 

178.  The  Packing  of  Apples  in  California. 

179.  Factors  of  Importance  in  Producing  Milk 

of  Low  Bacterial  Count. 

181.  Control  of  the  California  Ground  Squirrel. 

182.  Extending  the  Area  of  Irrigated  Wheat  in 

California  for  1918. 

183.  Infectious  Abortion  in  Cows. 

184.  A  Flock  of  Sheep  on  the  Farm. 

185.  Beekeeping  for  the  Fruit-grower  and  Small 

Rancher  or  Amateur. 

187.  Utilizing  the  Sorghums. 

188.  Lambing  Sheds. 

189.  Winter  Forage  Crops. 

190.  Agriculture  Clubs  in  California. 

191.  Pruning  the  Seedless  Grapes. 

1  93.  A  Study  of  Farm  Labor  in  California. 
195.  Revised  Compatibility  Chart   of  Insecti- 
cides and  Fungicides. 

197.  Suggestions   for   Increasing   Egg   Produc- 

tion in  a  Time  of  High-Feed  Prices. 

198.  Syrup  from  Sweet  Sorghum. 


No. 

201.  Helpful  Hints  to  Hog  Raisers. 

202.  County     Organization     for     Rural     Fire 

Control. 

203.  Peat  as  a  Manure  Substitute. 

204.  Handbook    of   Plant    Diseases    and    Pest 

Control. 

205.  Blackleg. 

206.  Jack  Cheese. 

207.  Neufchatel  Cheese. 

208.  Summary  of  the  Annual  Reports  of  the 

Farm  Advisors  of  California. 
210.  Suggestions  to  the  Settler  in  California. 

213.  Evaporators  for  Prune  Drying. 

214.  Seed    Treatment    for    the    Prevention    of 

Cereal  Smuts. 

215.  Feeding  Dairy  Cows  in  California. 

216.  Winter  Injury  or  Die-Back  of  the  Walnut. 

217.  Methods    for    Marketing    Vegetables    in 

California. 

218.  Advanced  Registry  Testing  of  Dairy  Cows. 

219.  The  Present  Status  of  Alkali. 

220.  Unfermented  Fruit  Juices. 

221.  How   California  is   Helping   People   Own 

Farms  and  Rural  Homes. 


